Blog

As part of the Jewish High Holiday season, like many of my co-religionists I have gone through some introspection and wondered is there a case that defines me as a lawyer. Throughout my career I have had the opportunity to represent some very interesting clients and be involved is some very interesting cases. When I thought about it there were two very similar cases that came to mind.

By Charles B. Wagner, Gregory M. Sidlofsky and Rachael Kwan For lawyers who represent Orthodox Jews in litigious proceedings it is important to understand their worldview. It is a fundamental belief of Orthodox Judaism that G-d gave the Jewish people the Torah at Mount Sinai and that those holy laws govern every aspect of a Jew’s lifeRead more

How does the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) (“Carter”) impact on the religious Jewish doctor? Will this landmark decision bring into conflict these doctors’ freedom of conscience and religion with their professional obligations? The Carter case sets aside federal criminal laws as they relate to physician assisted suicide. It stands for the proposition that individuals who are suffering unbearably have a constitutional right to a physician-assisted suicide. Canada now joins only eight other countries in the world that have decriminalized physician-assisted suicide in recent years. This is a fundamental change in the law.

For an Orthodox Jewish lawyer who is representing Jewish parties who are suing one another in a secular court, an ethical question arises. It gets further complicated where the client’s rights under secular law far exceed the rights they may have under Orthodox Jewish law. And this may very well be the case in the laws of inheritance.

The doctors argued that, in this context, “treatment” as defined in the Act does not include the withholding or withdrawal of treatment that had no medical value to the patient. Hence, the withdrawal of such treatment could be done without the patient’s consent. The doctors argued that the Act merely enshrined the common law which recognized a doctor’s right to withhold or withdraw treatment. The doctors further argued that according to the common law they were not permitted to continue “inhumane” treatment even if the patient or his substitute decision-maker demanded it.